Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURTAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained loan - addition based on recording statements under Section 131 - statement was later on retracted by the Assessee, but the time gap between the such retraction and the said statement is more than one year - HELD THAT:- If at all the original statement was recorded by the Assessing Authority, under duress of coercion, the Assessee could have retracted the same at the earliest available opportunity, after such statement was recorded. Taking a period of more than one year and again except such retraction of statement, in the course of second round of recording statements under Section 131 of the Act only, retraction of such statement, without adducing any cogent evidence to establish the identity of the said Creditor and genuineness of the alleged loan transaction, the Assessee seems to have done nothing to establish the genuineness of the entire loan transaction. It is not even believable that from a person, from whom the loan of ₹ 3 Crores is taken, is not even known to the Assessee and only the banking channels are relied upon to establish the genuineness of the so called transaction, which banking channels can be used even for fake transactions of circulating one's own unaccounted money in fake names. Neither any written contract nor any identity of the Creditor, having been established in the present case, we cannot find any fault with the findings concurrently rendered by the three authorities below, that the said addition deserves to be made under Section 68 - . Merely because other two loan transactions, with two other persons was believed to be genuine and additions were set aside, that is not a sufficient ground to hold that a similar treatment should have been given with respect to the alleged loan transaction of M/s.AR.Com also. Decided against the assessee.
|